it's a now there's one store that connects your life like never before store. the xfinity store is here. and it's simple, easy, awesome. . hello, i'm chris cuomo. if you're celebrating good friday or if you're celebrating passover, may your family be blessed and welcome to a bonus hour of "primetime." our president is taking a pass on showing any accountability because of the mueller report. instead he's vowing to turn the tables. but how do you even do that when

mueller may have set the table for impeachment? i've got one of the democrats who now must decide where their instincts lead them. and impeachment might be really the last of the president's worries. but would reelection be a firewall against criminal prosecution? here's a little friday hint. no. we're going to take it to cuomo's court and we'll hear the arguments on both sides. we're going to talk to the woman who started looking into the trump team and russia long before bob mueller got called in. what do you say? let's get after it. so what do the big shot democrats running for president going to do with this mueller report? we heard from senator elizabeth warren today, the first of them, to weigh in on this and she says the president should be impeached. she tweeted this. mueller put the next step in the hands of congress, the correct process for exercising that authority is impeachment. but so far there's been a

conpico conspicuous lack of buy-in. will we start to see a change to that? are they going to wait for polls? is this going to be up to what happens after 2020? let's get after it with congressman harley rouda, democrat from california. best to your family this weekend, sir. >> thanks, chris. >> all right. so how do you see it? >> well, i think it's a little more complicated than just jumping on board or off board on the idea of impeachment. we still have to get through this report. it's 400 plus pages and i will say this, for your viewers and everybody in our country, i'm reading it. i'm not all the way through it but if you just read the table of contents and the first ten pages your jaw will drop. it is amazing what our president and the people around him have been up to. >> you know what's interesting, so the argument from the president's lawyers is now this, says who? mueller? that's not fact.

this is his investigative speculation. these are allegations. this was never tried in a court. it's a very clever little piece of soft history, if you think about it. they knew, and mueller knew, and i'm sure they knew going into it he couldn't indict the president, and he didn't think he could, he wasn't go to, and now they're using the fact that they're not going to end up in a courtroom, which was supposedly their biggest fear, it's now going from shield to sword. what do you think of that? >> we hold our president of the united states of america to a much higher standard than indictment and conviction in a court of law. and the information that has been put on the table certainly has the basis for impeachment proceedings. and we know, without a doubt, if this was a democratic president we know exactly what the republicans would be yelling. and the fact that they're turning a blind eye at best to this behavior, or at worst condoning it, is a shame because this should not be a partisan issue.

this should be a right and wrong issue. and it deserves all of the members of congress to look at it in that way. >> fair enough. i hear you on what would happen if you change the names, what we'd be hearing from both sides, fair. but let's talk about whether or not you're right about the assumption of what we demand of a president. do you think that there's a chance that culturally there's been a steady decline, a disaffection where one of the reasons that people are not outraged by this president is because they can't be outraged anymore, not just about him, like trump fatigue, but they don't expect better from people in positions of public office. >> chris, i think you're absolutely right. and it should be concerning to all of us that we've taken the presidency repeatedly in this administration to lows that we did not expect. and perhaps new cultural norms. and if this is setting the precedent for how little we expect from our president down the road, it's a sad day for

america and it's a sad day for all of us here who expect greater leadership from the president of the united states. and more importantly more character. >> yeah, i wonder if the best pragmatism here, not to write off the right move, it's just a pragmatic one, is that going down the road of proving how bad he is may not bear the fruit that you want, you may not have the votes, you may not have the consensus, you may not have the public sentiment. but i think one of the reasons that mayor buttigieg, pete, is getting his apple shined the way he is right now, part of it is media affection. we'll see if that lasts. but everything about him is about integrity of his purpose and his positions, his honesty, his authenticity and i wonder if the better way for your party is to just show that you have someone better than he is, as opposed to spending the energy to point out how bad he is because people already know and

they either care or they don't. >> i think all the candidates who have announced and those who haven't announced and we believe will are better candidates and would be a better president than our current one and certainly have more character. so let's encourage all of them to continue to run and get over the finish line. >> when you look at the people signing up on the impeachment resolution, a lot of them are the -- not all of them, but most of them, other than al green, the young women warriors that just came in in this wave of elections, filled with passion and a sense of purpose and they want to act on it. is that the place for the party to be? >> i think we have to look at it more in the context of what we should be doing. and i think that's the challenge that many of us are having. we know that there are grounds for impeachment here. i will tell you right now, if this was a democratic president, i would be asking for impeachment. but we can't get this done without republicans also recognizing that this behavior, these actions that have been taken by this president were wrong and detrimental to the

foundations of our democracy. and without their support, without their patriotic commitment to doing what's right under article 1 of the constitution, it's going to be very difficult for us to take the mantle and run with this. >> people aren't there either, right? we do polling on it. i've never seen a number anywhere near 50%. >> this should not be about polling. this should be about right and wrong. >> i hear you on that. but look, i love the ideal. but what about the axiom that politicians act more out of fear of consequence than they do out of good conscience? >> well, i think that's one of the things i've seen since i've gotten to congress that unfortunately a lot of elected officials are there for the primary reason of getting reelected. and this is a perfect case in point when you have a 400-page plus report with thousands of other pages of supporting evidence that suggest a high level of wrongdoing beneath the presidency, what we and the from the presidency should demand all of us to take the appropriate

action that the constitution demands. >> it will be an interesting next few weeks. we've got to see if you guys can get the redacted information on the counter-intel side, what that means and what you do with it. congressman, thank you so much, the best to your team, thank you for sharing a special night like this with us. >> thank you. >> so the president is angry. and he is vowing revenge because of the mueller investigation. but he might not be out of legal danger himself. even without an impeachment. cuomo's court in session next. , little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop.

some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines, and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ready to treat differently with a pill? otezla. show more of you. ready to treat differently with a pill? travel and dining now kayak and opentable let you earn travel rewards every time you dine. with just one reservation on opentable, you can start saving money on hotels with kayak. get started at kayak.com/diningrewards. ...finding the right drop can be overwhelming. and ordinary eye drops... ...just add temporary moisture. but you want more. you want relief that lasts. you want to address the main cause of dry eyes. you want soothe xp eye drops... ...from bausch + lomb. the only eye drop that contains restoryl mineral oils. it's shown to help restore the lipid layer. to seal in moisture... and protect against further irritation. ordinary drops can't do that.

soothe xp. the right choice for dry eyes.

when you rent from national... it's kind of like playing your own version of best ball. because here, you can choose any car in the aisle, even if it's a better car class than the one you reserved. so no matter what, you're guaranteed to have a perfect drive. [laughter] (vo) go national. go like a pro.

see what i did there? it's friday night, but we got some new information. one of the most -- don mcgahn to have special counsel robert mueller fired. mcgahn refused to carry out the order and was ready to quit rather than carry it out because he saw it akin to richard nixon's saturday night massacre. moments ago we received a statement from mcgahn. it reads it's a mystery why rudy giuliani feels the need to relitigate incidents the attorney general and deputy attorney general have concluded were not obstruction. but they are accurately described in the report. don, nonetheless, appreciates that the president gave him the opportunity to serve as white house counsel and assist him with his signature accomplishments. that statement from an attorney

for mcgahn obviously accurately described. good. let's put cuomo's court in session. sarah azari, ken cuccinelli are here. sarah, welcome to the show. ken, always a pleasure and thank you. ken, start with you, maybe not obstruction but it doesn't make it right. and don mcgahn says, yup, the way mueller has it is the way it happened, not fake. what do we do with it? >> i think don mcgahn served his client very well in this whole episode. i assume you would agree with that. and the president didn't go around him and it's not like the white house counsel is in any chain of command. he's a counselor. so the president could have gone ahead and done this himself but he did not do that. to the statement from mcgahn's lawyer that what's reflected in the mueller report is accurate, i can't say that i'm all that

surprised by that statement. it's nice and simple, which is classic don mcgahn. i think, as i said, what he did in his role with a very upset, very angry, often impetuous client, served his client very, very well in his role as white house counsel. >> sarah, do you think that's the end of the depth of the analysis in terms of what it means about what the president wanted to do in this process? >> no, look, attempted obstruction is still obstruction. and people get prosecuted for that and convicted of that. this report is a compilation of very damning and stunning obstructionist behavior by the president. the mcgahn episode just being one of ten. and frankly if this was mr. donald trump versus president donald trump we would have an indictment. and i think mueller has been very clear that he's adhering strictly to the doj policy of

not indicting a sitting president and that is why, contrary to what a.g. barr said that somehow there were some issues of fact and law that this is because of that that mueller did not suggest prosecuting the president. and so -- >> that is not correct. >> that is correct. that is correct. and i thought -- i do agree with ken though, even though i disagree with this statement, that yes mcgahn's lawyer's absolutely correct, this report is the product of a two-year investigation, ethical one, thorough one, and it lays out not just all the lies that president trump has told the country but also the crimes. and i don't think this is the end of his legal troubles. just because mueller on his own motion decided not to suggest prosecution of the president doesn't mean he can't be prosecuted in the future and of course there's a question of impeachment which is largely political but also, you know, i think this is a high crime under article 2, section 4.

you know, the question is, obviously it's not treason or bribery, but is it a high crime? i submit it is. >> that would be an argument. >> yeah, it was committed by the president, but -- okay, fine. but look he is the president of the united states which during his office he directed his staff and his aides to derail an investigation. that is conduct that is unbecoming under the impeachment statute as well as an abuse of power. so it is a high crime. >> all right. so ken, what did you disagree with early on in there, you said something's not true, sarah said you're wrong, what is it so the audience can flesh it out? >> yeah, the allegation that mueller just said, oh, well, because he's president, obstruction's off the table. mueller -- that was not mueller's conclusion. >> that's not what i said. >> i would zero in. okay, now you've had your interruption, we're even one each. >> i don't keep score of that on this show, as you know, ken.

>> mueller and barr -- is that taking exactly the firing of the special counsel, if the president had done that that would be done on his article 2 authority. that is not a basis for an obstruction claim when he exercises his constitutional authority. that's the legal position of the attorney general. it's the legal position of alan dershowitz. >> i don't agree with alan dershowitz either. >> that's fine, i'm not saying you do. but i would also point out that in 448 pages, robert mueller never mentioned the precedent that is on point and that's the lawrence walsh special counsel precedent with bush pardoning wineberger and others on the doorstep of wineberger's trial. walsh didn't like it and he said he didn't like it. he didn't advance any --

>> that's not controlling precedent. it just happens to be an analog that we can look to. you're right to point at that. but i think the point of fact is -- >> you mean the only analog, chris. let's not minimize the only precedent -- >> what about a supreme court decision? >> let me make another point about it and mueller didn't mention it. why didn't mueller put in the most on point example? >> you're ignoring what he did mention. on page 1 of the report he said -- he basically -- we can put it up, find the graphic, we'll put it back up for people, on page 1, look for it yourself, he says, look -- >> i've read page 1. >> i know you have. i depend on your intelligence, why i have better minds like you and sarah on. i'm talking for people like me. he sta rs the report off by saying, look, we start this, taking the guidance of the doj. we went into it knowing he wasn't going to charge. that's what sarah is getting at. but now you get to this tougher stick, which is, well, the president can fire anybody he wants but not for any reason

that he wants. now this is this squishy area in the law. sarah, you're a lawyer, not a politician, ken has worn both hats. the idea of just because you can argue it doesn't mean you can win it and if you go for it and you lose there can be a big cost. would you take the case? >> look. no, listen, you're talking about corrupt intent with the issue of -- >> yes. >> right. so again, reading the mueller report, specifically volume two, the 182 pages, it's all about obstruction of justice. >> yes. >> and it's clear that there's ample evidence and the fact is that because he didn't get to sit down with the president, kudos to his lawyers, he chose not to subpoena the president, the length of time it would take him to get to the 2020 election or past that, he's saying we're not going to suggest an indictment of a sitting president. that doesn't mean -- in fact he

says he's not exonerated. this investigation does not exonerate the president. >> right. >> and to me that speaks volumes because a prosecutor is not in the business of exoneration. >> right. >> that's my job. they're not business of enforcement and prosecution. >> right. >> and conviction. so, you know, again, there is ample evidence. what is going to happen from here is going to be largely political, whether he's going to, you know, be impeached. >> right. >> and also whether, you know -- whether other prosecutors will pick up where mueller left off, once he's out of office. >> one of the reasons i asked sarah come on, ken -- >> can i make one comment? >> i want to make context for the audience. i've been hearing from people who are in active practice. that's why we love to have ken on this show also, this isn't over, if this was my client i'm worried about what happens when he gets out of office. are you -- and then last point to you, ken. >> i'm sorry. >> not you, sarah, it's ken. >> mueller -- yeah, no, i'm not

and that's because mueller, assuming objectivity on all parts, which doesn't always happen. but because mueller said that -- while he said i'm not exonerating him he clearly did not have a sufficient position to say this is an indictable offense. he said i'm not doing either. >> right. >> but the prosecutor's job, as sarah said, is making decisions about whether or not to prosecute. and mueller said he wasn't in a position to go forward or suggest going forward on obstruction. and it isn't because you don't indict a sitting president. it's because he couldn't conclude that they were over the threshold necessary to make that charge. >> could be both. i've got to leave it there. could be both. here's the good news. this is going to be settled because mr. mueller, by all accounts, is going to testify. and he will be able to reconcile what he was thinking and what he wasn't and that will be a benefit to the american people as well. ken cuccinelli, thank you, have

a blessed easter, and sarah, thank you for joining the show, strong arguments. >> thank you, happy easter. >> she was there in the earliest days of the russia probe before it became the mueller probe. so what does mary mccord think of what is in the 448 pages? what does she think it means? next. we're finally back out in our yard, but so are they. scotts turf builder triple action. it kills weeds, prevents crabgrass and feeds so grass can thrive, guaranteed.

our backyard is back. this is a scotts yard.

always read the footnotes. there is a crucial one in the mueller report that outlines how the president could face criminal exposure for his actions. here it is. a possible remedy through impeachment for abuses of power would not substitute for potential criminal liability after a president leaves office. impeachment would remove a president from office but would not address the underlying culpability of the conduct or serve the usual purposes of the criminal law. now, mr. mueller didn't come up with that. that is just black letter law as we call it. that's just the truth. mary mccord is a former acting

assistant attorney general, and part of the team that personally went to the white house to give early warnings about michael flynn. good to see you again. >> thank you, good to be here, chris. >> best to your family for a blessed easter. >> thank you, and to yours as well. >> why did they include that footnote? is it just to make us all a little smarter or is it insightful and instructive? >> i think mueller and his team are expecting that a lot of people will be looking at this report and thinking, you know, is this somehow putting this in congress's ballpark to take the next action? and i think this was just one way to show that there's different interests served by impeachment that are different from the purposes of a criminal prosecution. i don't think he's really putting a thumb on the scale of that and suggesting one or the other. i think he's just making sort of a statement like you indicated as we came into this. >> what do you think he was doing by saying that he cannot exonerate, can't make the case, can't exonerate, seemed to have

some pretext on why he can't make the case on page 1 of the report, he'll accept the olc guidelines which say can't indict a sitting president, why do you think he put it the way he did? >> well, you know, he -- it's interesting because this, in many ways, is a prosecution memo like i've seen hundreds of times before in my career at the department of justice. so these typically start out with sort of explaining, you know, whats t is the law, what the offense in the criminal code, what are the facts that have been amassed through the investigation and applies the law to those facts because all crimes have certain elements that you have to prove. so you apply the law to the facts and then you consider defenses, constitutional, statutory, other defenses and then reach a conclusion. and this does every single thing except reach that conclusion. that's what's different about it. but i think his point in making clear that he's not exonerating the president is because he felt

constrained, hamstrung by -- and bound by the olc memo that he could not recommend a prosecution. but i think he wanted to make it clear that he also couldn't exonerate the president. >> what do you make of the a.g. saying that mr. mueller was not predicating his decision of why he couldn't prosecute on the olc guidance? >> i found it really surprising when i actually got a chance to read the report after listening to the press conference because, again, and i'm looking down because i carry this thing everywhere with me now, the last day and a half. it's pretty clear that mr. mueller starts out part 2 of the report. >> page 1. >> yeah, page 1. and he says, you know, as a department of justice employee the special counsel, i'm bound by this, and specifically says we recognize -- we followed this in -- for purposes of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction, not discretion, but jurisdiction. >> right. >> and i think that's important here. >> so what do you think mr.

mueller meant with the language he put in there about congress? >> well, he also, in that very same paragraph suggests that, you know, that he doesn't want to interrupt any constitutional processes that may take place. and it's clear that by setting out all of this evidence and even by applying some of the elements of obstruction to the evidence without reaching a conclusion, he is providing a road map, either to congress or to a future prosecution because he makes clear that part of the reason he's put all this in the report is because memories are fresh now. >> right. >> and it's important to have it memorialized. >> he also says, the way i read it, please tell me if you saw it differently, that if the people under the president had done what the president asked them to do they may have been charged with -- he may be in the same boat with him. do you understand it that way as well? >> i think that's -- well, he

doesn't get to the but for. but he commends the people under the president for actually thwarting the president's intent to obstruct justice and i think he's relatively clear about that. and so, you know, i'm not going to say that every one of the ten scenarios that he analyzes is one that i think would be a prosecutable offense. he makes it clear. you can kind of read the language. there's some evidence, no evidence, substantial evidence. >> there was a range. >> there's a range. >> here's the thing i don't get. you say something, you know this is second nature for you, but for people less familiar with the criminal justice system prosecutors aren't in the business of exoneration. they don't use the word. they say i can either make a case or not. if it's 50/50 you're supposed to then not do it. the tie is supposed to go to the defendant. he took steps here, prosecutors wouldn't take. why didn't he just say it's close, but i can't make the case? >> well, i think only mr. mueller can really answer that

question. like i said, this is an unusual prosecution memo because normally you reach a conclusion, either we are prosecuting or we're declining. because he didn't feel like he could do that he must have felt like he needed to say something about this. >> that's right. >> and, you know, it's also -- there's somewhat of a disconnect in this particular case because his original appointment was really to complete a counterintelligence investigation. >> yes. >> right? with authority to bring prosecutions as necessary and appropriate. yet the special counsel regulations require him to submit essentially a standard prosecution memo that either recommends prosecution or declines it, which is impossible when you're talking about the president. >> the president. and also i want to thank you, you are one of the better minds early on when we were talking about collusion, you were like, you know, that's not a crime. it's not something we would talk about, just look at it as potentially bad behavior. it's something different.

collusion can be a crime. it's not a crime. it could just be bad behavior. thank you for that. it gave me a clear head in looking at things until that is, of course, the attorney general decided to twist the meaning of word himself for political purposes yesterday. the best to you and your family, mary mccord, thank you. >> thank you. mitt romney says he's sickened by the widespread dishonesty of the president and those around him after seeing the mueller report. and in fairness to him, when i say you hear that? that's a sound of republicans saying nothing. not fair to mitt romney. but he is a lonesome gop voice. some great politically savvy minds are here next. ♪

♪ ahhhh! ♪ we're here. ♪ ♪

yeah, i thought doing some hibachi grilling would help take my mind off it all.

maybe you could relieve some stress by calling geico for help with our homeowners insurance. geico helps with homeowners insurance? they sure do. and they could save us a bundle of money too. i'm calling geico right now. cell phone? it's ringing. get to know geico and see how much you could save on homeowners and condo insurance. the united explorer card hooks me up. getting more for getting away. traveling lighter. getting settled. rewarded. learn more at theexplorercard.com.

you've heard me say it before, criminality should not be the bar for acceptable conduct by our president or any of our elected officials, this

idea of it's a felony, if it's not a felony, then it's fine. but i've talked to a number of his aides, supporters in congress, and it seems to me they want to keep the bar as low as possible. listen for yourself. >> i go to church for my moral leadership. i look at politicians based on are you in line with my issues? you can be the nicest, most moral person in the world, i don't want you to be the president. >> you want me to make a moral judgment about it? >> yes. >> if we're going to start making moral judgments about everybody in public office we'll have nobody in public office. >> when the president goes to don mcgahn and says you need to do this, to stop this, and the guy has to threaten to resign or leave for not to happen and you ignore it, i think that matters too. >> but he didn't do it. he didn't fire mueller. that's the bottom line. >> if i ask you to punch mr. meadows and you don't do it, the request was still wrong. >> yeah, the request may have been wrong but it's not a crime

unless he assaults me. >> is that our standard? is that why you got into public service was to proof you're not a felon? >> just as point of law, obstruction, complete act. endeavoring to obstruct is what they call in the law an incomplete crime, an attempted crime. so you can have endeavoring to obstruct as well. that's about law. this is about something else. it's about political culture and character and what our expectations are and what seems to be a very sad shift. let's discuss, errol louis, ar in ana navarro. anna, i'm old enough to remember, when the stick, the cudgel your party used to beat bill clinton around the head and the neck was about character, character counts. mike pence wrote a letter, got to judge them as our neighbor, judge them through the lens of

morality, otherwise we can't have any kind of character in our politicians. what happened to that? >> trump happened. trump happened and took the republican party, the quarter of family values, the party of christian values, the party of social values, took them hostage. it's been a hostile takeover, enabled by elected republicans who have, i think, gotten terribly accustomed to looking the other way and playing dumb. they have gotten accustomed to lowering the bar, to continuing to support a president who is unethical, unstable, immoral, a liar, somebody who they wouldn't even want to invite to their easter lunch but yet they enable him and they play stupid time and time again because they are cowards, republicans in congress with very few exceptions are absolute cowards because donald trump has come after them and almost any and every republican, whoever spoke up against trump or ever stood up against him

lost in a primary. >> okay. >> or lost in a general or retired or died. >> okay. >> and what we have left is this bunch of cowards. >> betsy, i can see you're anxious to get in. >> well, i feel tremendous moral outrage but it's directed at mueller, not at president trump, because mueller, in this report, which i have right here, is threatening our civil liberties. he has flipped the burden of proof and said again and again in this report that he cannot find criminal evidence against the president. he's not concluding that the president committed a crime. but -- and this is the part of the sentence that should be erased. he is not exonerating the president. let me make it clear that in the united states of america, if a federal prosecutor does not find sufficient evidence to charge you with a crime you are presumed innocent. that is our right whether you are the president of the united states or chris cuomo or betsy

mccoy or errol louis or ana navarro. that is each of our rights, the presumption of innocence. how dare mueller take that away from us? >> mueller, a lifelong republican. >> that is not true. he assembled a totally democratic investigatory team. >> it's true. i was using it as a pivot to errol. you guys may not like his team. >> he's robbing us of our constitutional rights. >> he's not allowed to ask about party affiliation. >> he's robbing us of our constitutional rights. >> it wasn't a question. it was a comment, you can freely have it. now i want one from errol. errol, do you see that as the wrongful conduct of concern here? >> no, no, i don't think so, and in fact, look, it's a tricky legal position that frankly the president and robert mueller find themselves in, and he, i think, explains it very well in the obstruction section of the report where he says, look, it would be unfair to the president to charge him criminally, knowing that our internal

guidance means that we cannot charge him criminally and yet there's this information out here so rather than try to indict him, hit him with criminal charges we're just going to lay out what we know and then turn it back over to the justice department, the congress and the public to make of it what we will. and i don't think that means the president has lost his presumption of innocence. in fact, i think his presumption of innocence has been preserved. and frankly is preserving his presidency right now. and right now, i think what we're going to have to do is as a country, through our various institutions, including the media, the voters, the courts, to try and figure out what we're going to do about this. and, you know, you have mitt romney kind of expressing himself as a lone voice within the party, the party, the republican party seems to have spoken through silence, what they're going to do and this is absolutely nothing. >> the big question is, what do we do from here? and i have the perfect panel to address that as well. do this for me. give me one more favor here on this big friday night.

let's take a quick break. when we come back, let's try to see if we can reason our way forward. stay with us. rden you know, weeds are lowdown little scoundrels. with roundup sure shot wand you don't need to stoop to their level. draw the line. the sure shot wand extends with a protective shield to pinpoint those pesky bedfellows. it lets you kill what's bad right down to the root while comfortably guarding the good. draw the line with the roundup sure shot wand. roundup brand. trusted for over 40 years.

so chantix can help you quit "slow turkey." along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting so when the day arrives, you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life-threatening allergic and skin reactions. decrease alcohol use. use caution driving or operating machinery. tell your doctor if you've had mental health problems. the most common side effect is nausea. talk to your doctor about chantix. when you rent from national... it's kind of like playing your own version of best ball. the most common side effect is nausea. because here, you can choose any car in the aisle, even if it's a better car class than the one you reserved.

so no matter what, you're guaranteed to have a perfect drive. [laughter] (vo) go national. go like a pro. see what i did there?

. we're back with errol louis, ana navarro and betsy mccoy. betsy, pick up your point. you say i don't like mueller who's not a prosecutor to pick this third way of saying can't prosecute, can't exonerate. however, to errol's point, he's in a different spot than a typical prosecutor because he is not allowed to prosecute the person he is investigating and this seems to be a nod to that. now, of course the a.g. stepped in and said no obstruction. so what exactly is your

complaint given the full context? >> my complaint is that in our system of government there is no third way by creating that third way what he's really doing is writing a report that's just a smear. if there isn't enough evidence to bring charges, and he stated several times in his report it was not simply that it's the president with whom he's dealing, there was insufficient evidence to bring charges that's where the report should have stopped. >> but he also said he couldn't clear him. >> to continue and say but i can't exonerate him is a departure from one of the most precious rights we have in our system of government. >> he was saved of that from the a.g. it's not like his rights were hurt, in fact, mr. mueller even pointed out that he thought, as errol mentioned earlier, it would be wrong to charge him because the president wouldn't have his days in court because of the guidance from olc.

>> but he said there was insufficient evidence. if you look at the ten instances that he presented as possible issues for obstruction of justice the one that most people would look at that would be considered most serious is the firing of james comey. and there, it is quite clear that he's the president under article 2 of the constitution has an unlimited ability to fire anyone in the executive branch. >> he has ability to do it. you have to look at intent. >> he quoted in the report it's not the right man for the job. that was sufficient. under our system of government. >> that's your argument. i accept it. in terms of what we do with it from here, as you have heard me say before this was never ending in the courtroom. what do we do with this? >> congress has an over sight duty. this were a lot of issues in the

report. which need follow through. we need to understand what needs to happen today. and what this government needs to do so that russian interference and attempts at russian interference are other foreign government interference in u.s. election doesn't happen. that we have the safeguards against that. democrats are in a difficult position. because there's part of the base that wants impeachment. there's part of the base that's pragmatic and realizes it's an exercise in futility. i understand the frustration. there's enough in that report to warrant impeachment proceedings. certainly more in that report than there is about lying about a blow job. which did lead people like lindsey graham to push pr impeachment proceedings under clinton. >> they had the cover of the felony. >> i think democrats need to use it politically. adds a catalyst. and channel the frustration.

their anger and out rage. and take it to the polls. that need to remind voters that staying home is not a luxury they have. they're not going to drag donald trump out of there in an orange jump suit. they have to drag him out democratically. >> when you look at this we look at polls, we don't see -- the probe just came out. you have baked in numbers about how pem feel about this president integrity already. you have i have never seen a consensus on people wanting impeachment. what do you see as lt pragmatic course forward? >> i have talked to democrats of congress of the they with walking that fine line that she just laid out. where they don't politically want to damage chances and risk having the president reelected. we don't want to do that. rather than let the emotions or the passion of the base run away

with the process, they're trying to be judicious and measured and cautious. i think they str an absolute duty to probe a little bit further. there's no getting around that. what's laid out in the report is it closely parallels instances of possible obstruction of justice. that led to impeachment hearings and procedures. under clinton and nixon. you cannot simply look the other way and say let's pretend he didn't push his white house counsel and didn't ask for statements from intelligence agencies. and didn't make knowingly false statements to put out or led the lawyer lie to congress. and on and on. those things have to be dealt with. it would be unsatisfying to say it is what it is. and we'll settle it at the polls in november. that is the one course of action that they cannot really resort it. >> understood. it will be a balance of over

sight without being over reach. i have to go. we have to leave it there. >> william barr has been the come police sit in trying to under mine and whitewash the report. democrats have to push to see what the redacted terms are. what we know for sure is that we cannot trust william barr. he is a political hack. pretending to be an attorney general. >> ill say the american people are fed up for two years they were misled by the democratic part and media. they were told there was collusion and conspiracy between russia and the trump administration. and even the mueller report shows that was total garbage. so i think they want to move onto other issues there. tired of being lied to. >> you smear me with something i never argued. mr. mueller has 100 plus pages of collusion. bad acts by the people. that knew they were doing.

and lied about it. not crimes. there's a big difference. he lays that out. that's why you read the report. thank you. have a great weekend. be blessed. it's easy to forget that notre dame cathedral was gutted by fire just this past monday. and now here we are easter weekend. some thoughts on that. next. i never thought i'd say this but i found bladder leak underwear that's actually pretty. always discreet boutique. hidden inside is a super absorbent core

that quickly turns liquid to gel. so i feel protected and pretty. always discreet boutique.

easter is about jesus death and resurrection. the spirit of the season is rebit birth and renewal. the sad and apparent demise of our lady of paris. notre dame. a short circuit linked with elevators and republic elevators and renovation. the cause of the devastation. thousands gathered. the good friday ritual.

with the wreckage in the background. she too may rise again. the promise is that she maybe bert than ever. out of the darkness can come light. out of the worst we may see the best. i want to thank you for watching and a blessed weekend for all of you. now to anderson cooper. working late again in washington. with a special edition of ac 360. a blessed easter. >> you as well. thank you. good evening, everybody. tonight president trump went to carry out retribution as part of the reaction to the mueller report. a closer look at a key take awa after page -- the president's take on twitter. quoting now statements are made about me by certain people in the crazy mueller report. written by 18 angry democrat trump haters which are fabricated and untrue. watch out for people that take so called notes when the notes never existed until needed because i never agreed to

testify. it was not necessary